Introduction

Aviation is an important part of Canada’s economy, with Canadian airports contributing an estimated 194,000 jobs and $19 billion to the country’s GDP in 2016.[1] Canadian air traffic has increased significantly over the past decade and industry observers forecast passenger and cargo numbers at Canadian airports to continue to increase. According to Statistics Canada, 123.9 million passengers enplaned and deplaned at Canadian airports in 2013; this figure rose to 149.6 million passengers in 2017, a 20% increase over the four-year period.[2] The Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), responsible for the management of Toronto Pearson International Airport, estimates that air passenger figures at Toronto Pearson will increase at a rate of 3.1% per year over the next two decades from 2017’s record level of 47 million passengers to 85 million in 2037.[3]

Canadian airports provide the essential infrastructure for the aviation industry to operate. They also serve as important economic centres for their respective cities, providing employment, tourism dollars, and international trade connections for local businesses. Toronto Pearson International Airport, for example, directly employs nearly 50,000 people and the region surrounding the airport constitutes the second-largest employment zone in Canada.[4]

While airports are largely seen as economic assets for their host cities, concerned citizens and some observers have asked the federal government to pay increased attention to the environmental externalities of airport operations, including noise from aircraft flight paths near major airports. This noise is a source of annoyance and health concerns for those who live under flight paths, some of whom live in residential communities that existed prior to their local airport’s establishment or expansion.

On 18 September 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (the committee) agreed to study the impact of aircraft noise in the vicinity of major Canadian airports. Between 23 October 2018 and 28 February 2019, the committee held eleven meetings on this topic and heard from 43 witnesses, speaking on behalf of communities affected by aircraft noise, as well as representatives from government, industry, and academia.

Defining the Problem

In 2001, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a Montreal-based United Nations agency with a mandate to establish international standards for international air traffic, adopted the Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management, a set of model policies designed to help countries better manage aircraft noise while promoting the sustainable development of air transport. The four principal elements of this “Balanced Approach” are: 1) reduction of noise at the source through quieter aircraft; 2) land-use planning and management; 3) noise abatement operational procedures; and 4) operating restrictions. Transport Canada has adopted these principles in addressing noise around Canadian airports.[5]

In 2012, NAV CANADA, Canada’s civil aviation authority, made changes to its airspace and flight procedures to harmonize Canadian flight practices with those of the ICAO. These changes were part of a larger series of reforms adopted by ICAO member countries in 2010 that encouraged national aviation authorities to create more direct flight routes and more efficient arrival and departure procedures. The purpose was to improve airspace efficiency and safety, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and, where possible, reduce exposure to aircraft noise in residential areas.[6]

A number of residents and observers noted, however, that the introduction of this new suite of recommended practices, referred to as Performance-Based Navigation (PBN), had the effect of exposing previously unaffected residential areas to air traffic. This lead to complaints from some neighbourhoods that had not previously lived under flight paths and were unaccustomed to dealing with that noise.[7] Residents living under flight paths in major cities, including Toronto and Montreal, have organized community groups to represent their complaints and lobby elected officials for changes to airport practices. These residents cite increased levels of annoyance and stress and an overall diminished quality of life because of their daily exposure to aircraft noise.[8]

In response to public complaints about noise, airport authorities and airlines note that Canada’s aviation sector has made considerable progress in reducing overall aircraft noise levels. The committee was told that as a result of more stringent international noise standards, as well as technological advances, commercial aircraft have become significantly quieter in recent years. Scott Wilson, the Vice-President of flight operations at WestJet Airlines Ltd, testified that the current generation of aircraft have a 90% smaller noise footprint compared to the first generation of Canadian jet aircraft from the 1960s. Murray Strom, the Vice-President of flight operations at Air Canada, similarly reported that its Boeing 787 Dreamliner is 60% quieter than similar aircraft models from previous years. Martin Massé, the Vice President of Public Affairs for Aéroports de Montréal and Hillary Marshall, the Vice President of Stakeholder Relations and Community Engagement for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, also explain that while the number of air passengers has increased significantly, improvements in the size of aircraft have allowed this to happen without an accompanying increase in overall aircraft movements.

Despite these technological advancements, several experts testified to the committee that the general public’s tolerance of noise from transportation appears to have decreased over time.[9] Julia Jovanovic, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Windsor who is working with the GTAA on a research project to measure aircraft noise annoyance, noted the importance such findings have in developing noise abatement strategies:

Trends are emerging in recent studies identifying that transportation noise annoyance is on the rise. More people are expressing high levels of annoyance at lower noise exposure levels than ever before. Among transportation sources, aircraft noise is perceived as the most annoying. With forecasts for continual capacity increases across major airports worldwide and a trend of increasing aircraft noise annoyance, it has never been more critical to study the issue at length in efforts to find solutions to mitigate and manage it.

Other countries, notably Australia, the United States, and member states of the European Union, have been studying the issue of aviation noise and its effect on their populations for decades. However, according to Nick Boud, an aviation consultant with the United Kingdom-based firm Helios, Canada began to take an interest in this topic relatively late. Indeed, a recurring theme among many Canadian experts who testified before the committee, ranging from acoustics experts to a public health officer, is that there is a notable lack of Canadian research and data in this area for communities and other stakeholders to draw upon.[10] While Canada may have come late to the question of how to best manage aircraft noise, it is clear from the committee’s study that it has a wealth of international experience and domestic expertise to draw upon in developing best practices for the abatement and management of aircraft noise.

Responsibility for Air Transportation in Canada

Responsibility for Canada’s air transportation sector is shared among several different entities:

• Transport Canada establishes aviation safety and security standards under the provisions of the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). Part V of the CARs sets out standards for Canadian aircraft, including noise compliance, while Part VI requires aircraft operating near a Canadian airport to comply with any noise abatement regulations that facility may have established. The department also requires airport authorities to prepare noise exposure forecasts that predict noise resulting from aircraft operations using standardized software and measurements.
• NAV CANADA is a private, not-for-profit corporation that operates Canada’s air traffic control and civil air navigation system under the auspices of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act. NAV CANADA publishes Canada Air Pilot and Canadian Flight Supplement, two aviation reference publications that provide pilots with information on airport operations, including details on noise abatement procedures in effect at different facilities.
• Local airport authorities are not-for-profit corporations that manage and oversee 22 of the 26 airports that make up Canada’s National Airports System. These authorities manage the environmental impact of airport infrastructure on surrounding communities, including monitoring noise levels and responding to community complaints about noise resulting from their operations.
• Local governments, in most Canadian provinces and territories, are responsible for land use planning and development. Such planning authorities may use Noise Exposure Forecasts (NEF), produced by airport authorities using Transport Canada software and metrics, to determine areas where residential development may not be suitable. While, in most cases, ultimate decision-making approval for land use rests with such authorities, some provinces have created provincial guidelines that place additional restrictions on development around airports, such as Alberta’s Airport Vicinity Protection Areas[11].

The Extent of the Aircraft Noise Problem at Major Canadian Airports

Among other responsibilities, airport authorities are responsible for receiving and documenting noise complaints from residents. In their testimony to the committee, representatives of three major airport authorities (Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver) cited a common trend[12]: a small but vocal group of concentrated individuals is responsible for most of the complaints. To that effect, Table 1 below provides the number of noise-related complaints registered at four major Canadian airports (Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto Pearson, and Montreal Trudeau) in 2017 as well as information provided on the concentrated origin of these complaints.

Colin Novak, a professor specializing in environmental noise and psychoacoustics at the University of Windsor, took note of this trend and reported to the committee that the number of people affected by annoyance is statistically small but nonetheless deserving of attention and study, describing the impacted population as “a very vocal group with a very valid concern.” On that topic, Mr. Boud argued in his testimony that while complaints can be an informative metric, they should not be the only metric used to determine the extent of the aviation noise problem in a given region. Mr. Boud advised the committee to consider complaint figures on their own with some caution:

Airports and community groups argue about whether the number of noise complaints recorded is an accurate indication of the scale of the problem. I counsel that you look at complaints as only one piece of the wider evaluation as to the scale of aviation noise as a problem. There are many factors that mean you cannot directly compare the number of complaints between airports. Identifying the percentage of new complaints each year can be an informative metric, but again, it should never be considered in isolation.

Table 1 – Concentration of aircraft noise complaints at four Canadian international airports, 2017

Airport	Period	Total number of complaints	Concentration
Vancouver International Airport	2017	1,293	Four individuals were responsible for 64% of the complaints, including two who lived 23 kilometres from the airport.
Calgary International Airport	2017	5,700	Five callers made 72% of all calls; two individuals called over 2700 times (48%).
Toronto Pearson Airport	2017	168,876	29 callers were responsible for 66% of all complaints.
Montreal Trudeau Airport	2017	543	3 individuals were responsible for 27% of all complaints.

Source:  Vancouver Airport – TRAN, Evidence: Anne Murray (Vice-President, Airline Business Development and Public Affairs, Vancouver Airport Authority), Calgary Airport – TRAN, Evidence: Bob Sartor (President, Calgary Airport Authority), Toronto Pearson Airport – Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Noise Statistics Update, Montreal Trudeau Airport – Aéroports de Montréal, Soundscape Advisory Committee – Summary of February 2, 2008 meeting.

Issues in Noise Abatement and Management

In the written briefs and oral testimony delivered to the committee, several key issues emerged as areas where residents and some experts feel the current regime for dealing with noise complaints can be improved.

Noise Management Committees

As part of its Noise Abatement Procedures and Restrictions Implementation Process, Transport Canada requires airports to consult stakeholders, including community representatives, in making operational decisions that have noise implications, such as changes in runway use or flight approaches. At major airports, this consultation takes the form of a noise management committee, a permanent body intended to provide a forum for residents to voice their noise-related concerns and receive feedback from the airport authority. Transport Canada usually requires airport authorities to establish such committees as a condition of the long-term leases it signs.[13]

In her testimony to the committee, Sara Wiebe, the Director General of Air Policy at Transport Canada, notes that the department considers specific noise issues to be best handled by stakeholders at the local level. Airport authorities are accordingly granted autonomy in determining the composition and mandate of these noise committees.

Several residents that testified before the committee expressed dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the noise management committee model, with several witnesses using the term “façade” to describe the current public consultation process.[14] Sandra Best, representing the Toronto Aviation Noise Group (TANG), a residents' group concerned over aircraft noise at Toronto Pearson Airport, expressed her view that the GTAA seemed to view meetings of its Community Environment and Noise Advisory Committee (CENAC) as a formality for gaining acceptance for pre-determined plans rather than as opportunities for genuine consultation and public involvement. Peter Bayrachny, a representative of the Toronto-based Neighbours Against the Airplane Noise group, took issue with community representation, noting that the committee’s members included residents of Toronto’s eastern suburbs, but none from the communities immediately surrounding the airport who are most affected by aviation noise. Robyn Connelly, the GTAA’s Director of Community Relations, explained that the inclusion of such members was appropriate as the committee sought a membership that reflected the airport’s status as a regional hub.

Ms. Connelly noted in her testimony that the Authority accepted the conclusion of a report provided to it by the private consulting firm Helios that its noise committee lacked a “meaningful action plan or work program” and that it would soon unveil a “more ambitious” consultation model that implements recommendations made in a 2017 report it commissioned from Helios.[15] That report contains a number of best practices it found from investigating the mandate and activities of similar airport noise management committees, including the establishment of a tangible work plan focused on addressing community noise complaints, wider community involvement, including working with resident groups concerned with aircraft noise, and greater independence from the airport management, including the possible appointment of an independent chairperson.[16]

Noise Measurement

Canada’s tool for measuring and predicting noise near major airports, the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF), was created in 1967 by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Primarily designed as a land-use planning tool, the NEF system calculates a given area’s expected noise exposure (represented as an “NEF level”) by measuring the average number of flights travelling over a given area or “contour” along with several other factors. According to Dr. Novak of the University of Windsor, however, the NEF is no longer widely used outside of Canada. As a 1996 paper commissioned by the National Research Council explains, many of the formulations used in the NEF measurement, including its weighing of the effect of night-time noise, were based on assumptions rather than surveys of resident responses or other scientific evidence.[17] Indeed, the paper notes that while Australia once used the NEF measurement system it has since changed its time-of-day weightings to better reflect responses of a survey of residents near major airports.[18]

Transport Canada notes that adverse community reaction tends to start at the 25 NEF level, with complaints expected to become more vigorous at 30 NEF, and concerted group and legal action expected at 40 NEF.[19] Transport Canada recommends that the construction of new residential developments not proceed in areas where sound levels exceed 30 NEF.[20]

Dr. Novak and Ms. Jovanovic both noted that Canada’s metrics for measuring aircraft noise have not been updated since the 1970s and do not reflect current international best practice in acoustic measurement.[21] Bob Sartor, the President of the Calgary Airport Authority, similarly indicated that Calgary airport’s noise exposure forecast model has not “moved” since 1972, despite greater densification around the airport.

Experts noted key developments that have emerged in the understanding of noise on the general population, specifically survey data showing that the public is more sensitive to lower levels of noise than previously indicated and an increased emphasis on understanding and measuring the annoyance created by noise rather than simply the noise itself.

For example, Ms. Jovanovic, noted that this trend has been observed internationally, with recent studies identifying transport noise annoyance on the rise, with more people expressing high levels of annoyance at lower noise exposure levels than ever before. Dr. David Kaiser, a public health officer in Montreal, echoed Ms. Jovanovic’s comments that public tolerance for transport noise has likely declined since Transport Canada first developed its noise level recommendations. Dr. Kaiser cited survey data from the Montreal area showing that most aircraft noise complaints come from people living outside of the NEF 25-30 contours where Transport Canada anticipates noise complaints to be most likely to arise.

Jeff Knoll, a councillor in the Town of Oakville, expressed his view that scientific measurements of noise in decibels or noise compression rates are not able to fully express the concentrated nature of aircraft noise experienced by some residents living under flight paths. Ms. Jovanovic expanded on this point, noting that, given how the human ear perceives noise and the subjectivity of noise sensitivity in individuals, there is an important difference between noise mitigation and annoyance mitigation that is not addressed in current models. As Ms. Jovanovic explained, acoustics experts are paying increased attention in their research to the annoyance caused by noise rather than simply measuring overall noise levels:

Given the critical importance of annoyance, it is essential that the issue be studied at length while keeping in mind a few very important considerations…[N]oise mitigation and noise annoyance mitigation are not one and the same. This is an important distinction, as there are examples of noise mitigation efforts that have not reaped the benefits of significantly reduced noise annoyance, most notably the Frankfurt nighttime ban….Annoyance is a complex psychological and sociological phenomenon that cannot be simply and precisely predicted nor regulated through [traditional methods of measuring noise].

Public Access to Noise Data

Raymond Prince and Sandra Best, residents of Montreal and Toronto respectively who testified to the committee about their experience with aircraft noise, pointed out that airport authorities are exempt from the Access to Information Act, making it difficult for residents and community groups to access data on aircraft noise. Two witnesses researching aircraft noise in Canada similarly noted that data on aircraft noise is not uniformly available from all airport authorities and lacks a coherent methodology.[22] Mark Kuess, the Director of the Community Alliance for Air Safety (CAAS), also noted that limited data about enforcement of penalties and rule violations is made available to the public.

International aviation stakeholders have recognised public communication and knowledge as crucial tools in building public acceptance of transportation infrastructure. Community acceptance of airports is strongly connected to communication, and research studies have shown that transparency and trust are important non-acoustic factors that influence the community response to noise.[23] To this end, many countries require aviation acoustic data to be made available to the public. Some countries have also adopted legislation requiring the development and publication of noise maps or other data.[24]

While airport authorities develop NEF contour maps using software provided by Transport Canada, these maps are the property of the airport authorities, who may choose to share them with municipal government or other entities with land use planning authority. In fact, Transport Canada states on its website that such maps are not intended for public use.[25] In a written brief provided to the committee, Toronto-area resident Antonio Natalizio notes that while airports generally do not make noise contour information public, Health Canada advises residents to obtain such maps to determine whether their house is in a high NEF level area.

In a report prepared for the GTAA, the aviation consultancy firm Helios notes the importance of airports making information not only available, but also easily understandable to laypeople through the adoption of easily comprehensible measurements.[26] Some Canadian airports have taken measures to make user-friendly noise information available online. Vancouver International Airport, for example, allows the public to monitor incoming and outgoing flights online in near real-time with its WebTrak software portal. In addition to information on flight movements, this application displays recorded decibel levels at noise measurement stations throughout the Vancouver area and allows users to submit complaints about aircraft that may have exceeded maximum noise levels.

Dr. Novak and Ms. Jovanovic both identify Australia as an international leader in airport data transparency, noting that Australian airports enjoy a cooperative relationship with their surrounding communities, who frequently request and receive information on flight operations and noise from airport authorities.[27] Major Australian airports, like their Canadian counterparts, are run by private corporations that sign long-term leases with the Australian federal government.

In 2002, the European Union established a legally-binding Environmental Directive on Noise, which sets decibel limits for noise in various transport sectors, including aircraft noise, and requires EU member countries to publish noise maps and action plans for major airports in their territory.

Oversight of Canada’s Aviation Sector

In 1992, Canada began privatising the management of its large commercial airports through long-term leases with private, not-for-profit organizations called airport authorities. Currently, such authorities manage all but four of the 26 airports that compose Canada’s National Airports System. Transport Canada currently operates on what one stakeholder witness refers to as a “self-regulation model”[28], with the department explaining in its own testimony that it does not exercise day-to-day oversight over civil aviation operations or business decisions and expects airport authorities to monitor and enforce flight operations to ensure compliance with safety and security standards[29].

In 1996, the government extended its privatisation of the aviation sector through the sale of the ownership and operation of Canada’s Air Navigation System to NAV CANADA, a private company that continues to provide air traffic control service and civil navigation oversight to Canadian aircraft. The federal government continues to exercise oversight over NAV CANADA, including the appointment of three members to its 16-member board of directors and the enforcement of legislation which, among other provisions, places limits on service fees it may charge air carriers.

In June 2015, NAV CANADA adopted a voluntary communications and consultation protocol to ensure greater public participation in its decision making processes, particularly regarding decisions that may expose communities to aircraft noise. Ms. Best noted that the organization’s public outreach and responsiveness has notably improved since the adoption of this protocol, and called for its provisions to be legislated to ensure continued compliance and accountability. Conversely, Mr. Prince accused NAV CANADA of not following its voluntary commitment to consult the public on flight path changes.

Some citizen groups complained to the committee that the privatization of NAV CANADA and local airport authorities has made them largely unaccountable to their surrounding communities and expressed scepticism over the ability of either entity to fairly consider and respond to public noise complaints given their financial relationship with airlines.[30][31]

While many other Western countries have privatised their civil aviation sectors to some degree since the 1980s, all of them continue to exercise some degree of oversight. Some countries have established independent entities with statutory authority to investigate and arbitrate noise complaints.

These independent entities, sometimes dubbed noise ombudsmen, are charged with handling noise complaints or overseeing the noise complaint process. Examples of such bodies include Australia’s Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, a government-funded office that handles complaints about aircraft noise, monitors the presentation and distribution of aircraft noise-related information, and makes non-binding recommendations to Airservices Australia, the country’s civil aviation authority. Several residents dealing with aircraft noise in their communities expressed a desire for such an independent oversight entity in Canada.[32] Helios’ report on best practices in aircraft noise management notes that the creation of a Canadian aircraft noise ombudsperson would require discussion between airport authorities and Transport Canada as well as possible new legislation.[33]

Another potential gap in Canada’s current aviation oversight regime mentioned during this study relates to the authority over noise produced by foreign aircraft. As Neil Wilson, the President and CEO of NAV CANADA notes, Canada is at an international aviation crossroad, with many flight paths between Europe and the United States crossing Canadian airspace. Mr. Wilson notes that while NAV CANADA is responsible for making sure that foreign aircraft are safe while in Canadian airspace, it does not have a mandate to restrict their flight, including any noise they may produce. Michael Robinson, the Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada, similarly noted that while the department has requirements with regard to safety and security with aircraft landing at Canadian airports, these requirements do not specifically address noise.

Transport Canada notes the following on its website:

All aircraft operators must comply with the noise operating restrictions and noise abatement procedures, which are published by NAV CANADA in the Canada Air Pilot and the Canada Flight Supplement…Penalties for violating these procedures and restrictions can be as high as $5,000 for an individual and $25,000 for a company. NAV CANADA updates these publications every 56 days to ensure that flights comply with the latest operating standards.[34]

Elsewhere on its website, the department provides information on corporate and non-corporate offenders who have committee infractions under the Canadian Aviation Regulations, including violations of noise abatement procedures and noise control requirements listed in the Canada Flight Supplement or Canada Air Pilot.[35] The provided data, however, do not detail the specific infraction or where it occurred beyond a broad geographic region. Similarly, it is not clear if aircraft passing through Canadian airspace, rather than landing at a Canadian airport, would be subject to such enforcement measures.

Health Concerns

A 2007 report from the ICAO’s Committee of Aviation and Environmental Protection’s Noise Panel concluded that there is sufficient scientific evidence of a relationship between exposure to aircraft noise and five areas of human health and wellbeing:

• community annoyance;
• sleep disturbance/awakening;
• hypertension;
• cognitive and academic performance of children; and
• speech and communication interference.

The ICAO study also notes that full causality between aviation noise and health effects has not been established and that the above health effects can be influenced by several factors, including differences in noise sensitivity, variability in human hearing ability, the impact of other sources of noise, and socio-economic factors.

A 2010 publication from Health Canada, which provides advice to Transport Canada and other public authorities on the health effects of aircraft noise, appears to disagree with some of the ICAO’s conclusions. Health Canada notes that while studies on possible links between noise and stress-related health concerns are ongoing, it does not consider there to be sufficient evidence in the existing scientific literature of a link between aircraft noise and either heart disease in adults or chronic stress in children.

Several witnesses living in areas with high levels of aircraft noise testified about health concerns, often citing scientific studies that claimed a connection between prolonged exposure to aircraft noise and a variety of poor health outcomes.[36] Dr. Kaiser cited evidence from the World Health Organization (WHO) concluding that there is “high-quality” evidence of a link between aircraft noise and annoyance, which affects quality of life and is also a factor contributing to a wide variety of health outcomes.

Shortly before the committee began its study, the WHO released a publication on noise in the European region that set a guideline exposure level of 45 decibels (dB) using a balanced day-evening-night metric (Lden) for aircraft noise and a level of 40 dB using a night-weighted metric (Lnight) for aircraft noise at night, concluding that aircraft noise above these levels is associated with adverse health effects.[37] The study found that there is moderate-quality evidence of an association between exposure to aircraft noise at levels above 45 dB Lden and annoyance as well as poorer reading comprehension in children.[38] It also found moderate-quality evidence of an association between exposure to night-time aircraft noise at levels above 40 dB and negative effects on sleep.[39] In addition to these guidelines, the publication also reviewed evidence of possible measures taken to reduce aircraft noise exposure. Of the measures examined, the WHO found moderate-quality evidence in scientific literature of changes to flight paths resulting in improved health outcomes.[40]

Two witnesses expressed concerns over the WHO’s updated guidelines. Dr. Novak questioned the “strength and validity” of the organization’s conclusions and recommendations, explaining that he felt the WHO guidelines do not place proper emphasis on annoyance as a cause of health problems.[41] Mr. Boud submitted an article from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health[42] to the committee that criticizes the WHO’s findings on annoyance at levels above 45 dB Lden. The article argues that the WHO included surveys in its aircraft noise dataset that should have been eliminated for not following standardized research methods. It concludes that eliminating these problematic studies would result in a guideline exposure level of 53 dB Lden. These differing conclusions on noise guidelines speak to the lack of international consensus on a specific measurement for aviation stakeholders to achieve in their operations. Mr. Boud noted that European airports use a standard of 55 decibels as a benchmark in measuring flight noise, but that this is not a strict limit to be achieved by the airports themselves.

As in other areas of this study, witnesses cited a significant lack of Canadian data on health effects and difficulty in obtaining the data necessary to make evidence-based recommendations.[43] Dr. Kaiser stressed the need for local health authorities to have more access to data on flight movements to properly assess the impact of flights on their communities and not rely on anecdotal evidence.

Night Flights

Canada’s major international airports enforce location-specific noise abatement procedures for night-time flights that may set limits on the size of aircraft that may land or depart during certain hours or outline special landing patterns or other flight practices designed to minimize noise exposure levels in surrounding residential areas.[44] These restrictions are included in the Canada Air Pilot and the Canada Flight Supplement, published by NAV CANADA on a regular basis for aircraft operators working in Canadian airspace. Transport Canada allocates the country’s busiest airport, Toronto Pearson, an annual “budget” of scheduled flights that may operate during this time based on a formula that considers overall passenger numbers at the airport.[45]

Several witnesses representing resident groups or testifying as individuals expressed concern over flights operating during night hours, with some expressing a desire to ban such flights completely to ensure that residents receive a pause from noise to allow for uninterrupted sleep.[46] A brief from the Markland Woods Homeowners Association, a group of residents concerned with aircraft noise at Toronto Pearson Airport, notes that the airport’s night hours were originally 22:00 to 07:00, before being reduced to eight hours and ultimately to the current six hour period. Mr. Boud and Ms. Marshall reported that most flights arriving during these hours are passenger flights, with cargo flights a distant second, indicating public demand for flights at night.

Those arguing for a total prohibition on night flights at major Canadian airports frequently point to Germany’s Frankfurt International Airport as an example of a major international airport that has successfully implemented such a ban while continuing to serve as the busiest German airport and the fourth busiest in Europe.[47] In October 2011, the German state of Hesse issued a ban on all flights between 23:00 and 06:00., severely restricting operations at Frankfurt International.[48] Expert witnesses explained to the committee, however, that this blanket night flight ban did not result in any change in overall annoyance levels among Frankfurt residents, rendering it largely ineffective as a noise abatement tool.[49]

Ms. Marshall expressed her view that further restrictions on night flights would have harmful economic consequences for the Toronto region and the Canadian economy. This message was echoed by David Wojcik, the President and CEO of the Mississauga Board of Trade, who estimated that a night time ban would result in a $6 billion loss in economic activity as well as job losses. The GTAA cited an increased desire for direct passenger flights to Canada’s west coast as well as long-haul destinations in Asia as a key impetus for the increase in night flights in recent years.[50]

The 2017 Helios report notes, however, that Toronto Pearson’s night hours are shorter than most of its counterparts at other airports.[51] While flights operating at Pearson between the hours of 00:30 and 06:00 are restricted, most international airports have a designated night period of at least eight hours. Many airports also take a noise-based approach to flight restrictions. London Heathrow Airport, for example, enforces a noise quota that places a limit on the overall noise made by aircraft landing or taking off between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00 and issues increased noise charges to aircraft landing during this period.[52]

Reducing Noise “At The Source” Through Quieter Aircraft

Airlines play an important role in reducing airplane noise “at the source” through their acquisition of quieter aircraft and ensuring that flight crews follow noise-mitigating flight practices. As noted above, the current fleet of aircraft operating at major Canadian airports are, by any metric, considerably quieter than their predecessors. Some airports seek to encourage airlines to continually acquire and operate quieter aircraft using various incentives. Vancouver International Airport, for example, issues an annual Fly Quiet award to the airline that best adheres to the airport’s noise abatement procedures and produces the lowest measured noise levels for aircraft in its category.

A notable example of the importance of noise reduction in aircraft is Air Canada’s Airbus A320 fleet. Ms. Marshall identified this group of aircraft as producing an identifiable high-pitched “whine” related to air intake and noted that the GTAA had asked carriers operating at Toronto Pearson to take measures to correct it. Airbus has identified the noise as a defect caused by air flowing over vents in the aircraft’s wings and has notified airlines that the issue can be remedied with the installation of a vortex generator, a small metal piece available from the manufacturer at minimal cost.[53] According to Helios, this retrofit can reduce the noise generated by the aircraft by 4-9 decibels.[54]

The GTAA has made the A320 repair part of its 2020 Noise Management Plan and has requested that Air Canada install vortex generators on its fleet by the end of 2020.[55] As he mentioned during his 27 November 2018 appearance before the committee, Marc Garneau, the Minister of Transport, has held conversations with Air Canada asking it to retrofit its fleet within the timeframe established by the GTAA.[56] Mr. Strom noted that the airline would only have 15% of its fleet retrofitted by the end of 2018 and only 80% by the 2020 deadline, citing the logistical difficulties faced in taking these aircraft out of service for maintenance as well as the lack of repair kits currently available from Airbus. Mr. Strom also sought to downplay the noise reduction that would result from such a retrofit, claiming that it would reduce the aircraft’s overall noise by only three percent. A number of Air Canada’s international peers, including Air France, British Airways, easyJet, and Lufthansa, are reported to have already made this change.[57] Ms. Best, on behalf of the community group TANG, asked for the acceleration of this retrofit process, which Mr. Knoll described as occurring at a “molasses-like rate”.